Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I second the amendment. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The Green Paper is aspirational and vague, and no costings are indicated, as Senator Finucane noted. While everybody understands the importance of the maintenance of security of supply, we must realise the crisis in Ireland with regard to future development. A few days before Christmas last year, we were in the amber light section. It was only then we realised the seriousness of our situation with regard to our overdependence on imported fossil fuels. However, there was no clear indication from the Minister, the Government or the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, that they are serious about moving forward at an accelerated rate.

We have had ample opportunity in the past five years to bring on-stream many wind energy projects but they have been stifled. Perhaps, in the first instance, this was not the fault of the Government but of the local authorities and the planning procedures. Many wonderful projects are ready to proceed, and are supported by communities, private investors and companies. However, the major stalling point for these projects, despite them having gone through the planning process, which was difficult in many cases, is access to the national grid. Whatever the Government must do, they must free up the logjam that in the national grid if we are to release the potential in wind energy.

Many suggest there is a grand plan to stifle access to the grid so the ESB can move in at a crisis point, when those who have invested heavily in planning and development of sites are over a barrel economically, and purchase access to the grid. It is unfair but nothing the Government has done in the past nine years indicates it is committed to freeing up access to the grid.

Many projects were supposedly given clearance for access to the national grid under the Gate 2 process. However, the reality is that since last August, the CER has not moved forward with projects that were ready to proceed. Somebody must knock heads in this regard. The commission must take responsibility because it delayed for six months prior to August on deciding who would and would not get in. Having made the decision, it has stalled the Gate 2 process and nothing has happened.

I would be glad to accept the situation is not as I have set out. I know of a particular project which has been ready to proceed for four years but cannot do so, first and foremost because the commission held it back. Before that, it was held back due to planning issues. Those involved are now in a situation where the planning permission is due to run out but they have not yet received confirmation that they can begin development. This is unacceptable. If the Green Paper were serious about energy requirements and contained a commitment on action, it would be important.

The Green Paper is long on style but short on substance. Two factors are referred to repeatedly in the Green Paper, namely, competition and transparency. However, despite my efforts to get information, I have failed to get details from the Minister, the Department or the CER about a particular case. A modern gas-fired electricity producing power station has been built in Tynagh, County Galway. I do not know who owns the station — nobody seems to own it. GAMA, the builder of the station, was the first owner but it sold out at a huge profit. Who are the investors in Tynagh Energy? I cannot find out.

A more serious problem concerns the terms of contract for Tynagh Energy, although I am open to contradiction in this regard. It is my understanding there is a 15-year contract for the supply of electricity and the producers are guaranteed payment for 100% capacity production despite the fact there has never been much more than 50% utilisation of the station's capacity since it was commissioned. How can we call this competition given that we are being charged 100% for electricity but are utilising only 50% on average? Is it competition?

I challenge the Minister of State to explain why electricity customers are facing increases of 19% or 20% when there is such a farce in regard to Tynagh. Must we provide 50% incentives to guarantee reliability of supply for the future? Why must the customer pay for this? Will the Minister of State indicate whether these are the terms of the Tynagh Energy contract for the next 15 years? If so, how can we claim to be serious about regulating energy costs? We are not. We are handing control to unidentifed people.

Projections have been made about changing over to bio-fuels. The target exists and we would have a tremendous response from bio-fuels if we had a doubling of the tillage area for this purpose. The Minister of State comes from a tillage county but can he truthfully support the idea that it is possible to double the amount of tillage in order to provide the requirement for bio-fuels? It is not on. We are talking about an aspirational situation with no account being taken of the consequences of what is involved, including costings. The Green Paper is vague in this respect and I am not too sure if everything in it was not a rushed job.

As regards the break-up of the ESB, we are talking about competition on the one hand and reliability of supply on the other. It is a thin line between both aspects, however. The Minister of State should tell the House clearly whether or not the ESB is to be broken up. If not, how can we correlate that with future energy costs? Most people would say that over the years the ESB has been particularly good with regard to reliability of supply and repairs. If we are going to privatise the ESB, will it turn out, as we have today, that somebody is lurking in the long grass, waiting to snipe at certain aspects of the company, thus crippling it later on?